On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 8:06 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, see also http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYRGUcFBy6VgN0+Pn4f6Wv=2H0HZLuPHqSy6VC8Ba7vdg@mail.gmail.com
> where Andrew's opinion on how to fix this was sought.
>
> I have to say the fact that IPC::Run does shell-glob expansion of its
> arguments on some machines and not others seems ludicrous to me. This
> patch may be overtested, but such a radical behavior difference is
> completely nuts. How is anyone supposed to write reliable tests for
> any feature in the face of such wildly inconsistent behavior?
Yeah, I was speculating that it's a bug in IPC::Run that has been
fixed (by our very own Noah), and some of the machines are still
running the buggy version.
(Not a Windows person, but I speculate the reason that such a stupid
bug is even possible may be that Windows lacks a way to 'exec' stuff
with a passed-in unadulterated argv[] array, so you always need to
build a full shell command subject to interpolation, so if you're
trying to emulate an argv[]-style interface you have to write the code
to do the escaping, and so everyone gets a chance to screw that up.)
